People are whining about how Hollywood doesn't reflect America, with the nominations of films like Good Luck and Good Night and Brokeback Mountain. Of course this is nonsense, because it varies by year. Some years that happens, and some years critical hits win. Of course, this is fundy carping, but the fact is that movies are not static things.

One example: Vertigo. When it was released, it was a flop. People didn't get it and it was seen as one of Hitchcock's lesser films. But by the magic of Francois Truffaut and other critics, suddenly it became one of the great films.

Look at the films from the 30's and 40's. Only in two years does the winner match the film which should have won according to Filmsite

1938 You Can't Take It With You Frank Capra Columbia

Not nominated Bringing Up BabyAngels With Dirty FacesThe Lady Vanishes

Look at what kind of films won and what films were not even nominated. How Green Was My Valley? Going My Way? They beat Citizen Kane and Double Indemnity, one the best film ever made, the other, a classic.

Look at 1952

1952 The Greatest Show on Earth Cecil B. DeMille* Paramount

Not Nominated

Singin' in The RainThe Bad and the BeautifulThe Member of the WeddingRancho NotoriousPat and Mike

Should have won

Singin' in The RainorHigh Noon

Think about this for a minute, Neither the Bad and the Beautiful or Singin' in the Rain, both classic movies now, were not even nominated. That just seems amazing today. If you think that is bad, look at 1956

Chimes at Midnight/FalstaffPoint BlankTwo for the RoadCamelotCool Hand LukeIn Cold BloodUp the Down StaircaseWait Until DarkShould have won Bonnie and ClydeorThe Graduate

But the worst years for nominations in modern film history were were 1979 and 1998. The reason is that the Academy voters are no different than other people who watch films. They often go with the popular film over the film which should win or the film which will be well regarded in film history.

There are many difficult films like Paths of Glory and Psycho which while great movies, are far too upsetting to make the cut. They're difficult films and people pass on them. The same for Citizen Kane, the most political movie ever made. William Randolph Hearst had a stranglehold on the media and the film went straight at him, in a way never seen before or since. There isn't a figure you could make a film about like that today.

Bill Gates is despised by some, loved by others, but an adulterous man who dumps his family for an actress? George Bush may be a dry drunk, but even a movie showing him vomiting and slapping his wife wouldn't be nearly as subversive. When Citizen Kane hit the screens, it was revolutionary in every way from set design (no film set had ceilings before this film) to the cinematography to the script.

Oddly enough, the only film to come close in it's political aggression was Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, until movies like The Manchurian Candidate and Seven Days in May.

Not Nominated The Truman ShowThe Big LebowskiGods and MonstersPleasantvillePrimary ColorsRushmore

Should have wonThe Thin Red LineorSaving Private Ryan

Now why did these films win over the more difficult films? Because they spoke to issues like divorce and romance which won over the voters. Are they better films? Hell no.

This is a rare year in the Oscars, where small, independent films are nominated and can win. In most cases, it is rarely the best film which wins.

In most years, even popular films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, can be skipped over. It is amazing that Manhattan, Woody Allen's best film, wasn't even nominated. But then, it was filled with all kinds of weird quirks, like Allen dating a 17 year old Dalton student, played by Mariel Hemingway, and him trying to kill Meryl Streep's lesbian lover, as well as it being shot in black and white.

Shakespeare in Love harks back to the old romances Hollywood used to produce, but even with Saving Private Ryan's and The Thin Red Line's flaws, they are vastly superior films. If you want to talk about Hollywood being tone deaf, that's a perfect case. People were flashing back during that movie, with some of the realism of the scenes. It could have had a stronger, less sentimental script, but as a film, it was honestly brutal.

The Thin Red Line is a beautiful film, but is either an half hour too long or two hours two short. But to compare that to Gwyneth Paltrow screwing Joseph Fiennes is to miss the point. I mean Driving Miss Daisy beat Henry V, which wasn't even nominated, Ben Hur beat a non-nominated Some Like it Hot and North by Northwest. So to say that Hollywood doesn't listen to the public is talking out of one's ass.

One could say that the better a film is, the less likely it is to win an Oscar. You can count the number of years on both hands when the best picture Oscar goes to the best picture.

So when people complain about the nominations, or the simpletons on TV go on about how few people have seen this or that film , as if cable and DVD's don't exist. Ignore them. One example of the power of cable to change minds is the Shawshank Redemption. When it was released in theaters, it was a flop, but on cable, it became a hit. While people might have been unwilling to sit through the film, they would watch it on TV.